KISHAN PYARI Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected revisions before me involve a common question of law and, therefore, it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common order.

(2.) The petitioner is defendant-tenant and the non-petitioner is plaintiff- landlady. The plaintiff instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant in the court of Munsif City, Jodhpur on February 7, 1975 on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity under Section 13 (1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act' hereafter). It is common ground between the parties that the shop was let out for commercial and business purposes. During the pendency of the suit, the Act was amended. By means of amendment subsections (2) and (3) were added by the amending Ordinance No. XXVI of 1975 with effect from September 29, 1975. Ordinance No. XXVI of 1975 was replaced by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) (Amendment) Act. 1976 (No XIV of 1976) published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary Part 1VA dated February 13, 1976. Sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 14, read as under;

(3.) It needs to be mentioned here that on November 9, 1976, an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint for incorporating the facts relating to comparative hardship between the landlady and the tenant. The learned Munsif allowed the application on April 24, 1977 and the amended plaint was submitted on, May 5, 1977. The defendant-petitioner while resisting the suit, inter alia, raised an objection in para 7 of the written statement, the substance of which is that since the plaintiff had moved an application for amendment of the plaint on November 9, 1976, the suit for ejectment from the shop in dispute, is not maintainable under Section 14 (3) of the Act The learned Munsif, after hearing arguments on the defendant's application dated November 21, 1977, framed issue No. 10," which when translated into English, reads as follows: